this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2026
68 points (77.9% liked)

Linux

64383 readers
585 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I’ve spent years championing Linux as the only escape from Big Tech, but I’m starting to get twitchy.

While we’re distracted by the Steam Deck making Linux "mainstream," the corporate players and politicians are busy building a digital cage. Between California’s AB-1043 mandates and Microsoft’s "Face Check" infrastructure, I’m worried we’re heading for a hard schism: "Sanitised Linux" vs the "Free Rebel" distros.

If the compliant, age-gated version becomes the industry standard, where does that leave the rest of us? Digital exile?

I’ve put some thoughts together on why the "Golden Cage" is closing in and why education, not mandates, is the only real fix.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheIPW@lemmy.ml 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I think that’s a dangerous assumption to make. If the OS is tied to your physical identity, the 'VPN' layer becomes much less of a shield. Once the kernel level is 'compliant' with an ID check, the metadata being leaked or even the hardware ID itself makes anonymity a lot harder to maintain.

You’re right about the social media risk, but the OS is the foundation. If you give up the keys to the house, it doesn't matter how many extra locks you put on the individual room doors. That 'disappointing risk' is exactly how the 'invisible borders' start getting built.

[–] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

Parts of what you just said are not really a proper response to what I said, either because of accuracy or relevance. So I'm just going to address the one important part of what you said, metadata.

I didn't consider metadata because I treat proof of age as what it is, proof of age with proof of identity being incidental. If visiting a website requires handing over my full birthday, "hardware ID", or real identity then I would be concerned, but we're not there yet.

It's a widely held view in the general public that you should be able to browse the internet privately just like you should be able to browse a library without the government seeing a log of every book you read, and I hope that would be enough to resolve this. The general public is not very concerned about browser fingerprinting, which effectively erases user privacy, but government mandated sharing of your identity online would be a red line that would get the normies involved.

[–] TheIPW@lemmy.ml 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

You’re right that the average person doesn't care about fingerprinting, but that’s exactly the problem. To me, browser fingerprinting isn't just a technical quirk, it’s a violation of privacy that effectively erases your ability to be anonymous, regardless of whether you have a VPN or not.

If we let OS-level ID checks become the standard because people don't care, we’re essentially legitimising that tracking. My red line isn't just a government log of my identity, it’s the fact that the tech is being built to make that log possible in the first place. Once the infrastructure is there, the incidental proof of identity quickly becomes the primary feature.

[–] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml 0 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Your response again doesn't really follow from what I wrote. It retains some key words but not the ideas.

Browser fingerprinting which exists because the average person can't be bothered concealing it and the theoretical sharing of your ID with the sites you visit due to a government mandate are two entirely different things. Not just because the public skepticism towards the latter, but also because you can get around the former with the right web browser.

EDIT: I think I just did the same thing I accused you of, talking past you. My response basically just rejects your core conceipt, that being a distinction between the private power-user experience and the public normie experience. I'll need to edit this.